Monday, September 20, 2010

Doug Groothuis's "Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement"

Over at the creationist "Leadership University" site, Doug Groothuis has a piece called "Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement", where he lists some ways that evangelical Christians fail to carry out their mission effectively.

It's a real hoot. "Ignorance" is one of the enemies, but Groothuis also makes the bogus claim that "macro-evolution is false, and good arguments have been raised against it from both nature and Scripture". He actually cites the vastly-ignorant Phillip Johnson -- a lawyer with no training in biology -- as someone who has made good arguments with "intellectual integrity" against evolution. (Groothuis also misspells Johnson's first name.)

I remember the time that Phillip Johnson arrived at the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins, back in 1993. He arrogantly rode in on his evangelical high horse to do battle with the godless evolutionists, confident that his rhetorical skills would hide his lack of biological knowledge. The result was not pretty at all. Johnson had to leave in a cowardly huff because he couldn't handle the criticism from people who actually knew something about the subject.

"Cowardice" and "arrogance", however, are two of Groothuis's problems with evangelicals. He says that evangelicals should "cultivate real dialogue with unbelievers". Is that the very same Doug Groothuis who routinely bans commenters at his blog who disagree with his claims? Why, I believe it is.

Heh. I also recall Johnson's brief appearance on t.o -- he blathered a lot about Darwinist materialism, but not much about science. IIRC, Chris Colby (then a grad student in bio) read PJ's book, and offered to discuss a number of errors he found therein. PJ disappeared shortly thereafter.

Are you positive you didn't use invective against him like this before he banned you? It's kind of hard to have a real dialogue with someone who insults you.I recommend starting over with Groothuis, but use a pseudonym, so that he'll be willing to listen to you. Of course, you'll have to avoid the insults.

I ban people who I deem to be give more invective than argument, and you fit that category. However, I do not ban everyone or most people I disagree with. For example, I just posted something by "Atheist Missionary" that completely disagrees with me concerning the post you are responding to. I then responded to him and he responded back. Moreover, I prefer off-line interactions, since they tend to not be so impolite.

You have hit the nail on the head. Dr. Groothuishas become a ban-maniac on his blog.

He reminds me of the character played by BillMumy on an episode of the classic Twilight Zoneseries. Mumy played a 10 year old boy, withsupernatural powers, who terrorized a small midwestern farming community.

"The better be nice to me," said Mumy's character,or they would end up in the cornfield.

In a recent post on his blog, Groothuis complainedthat there was nobody who would engage in rational discourse with him. Well, of course not. A wouldbe critic gets one or two posts, and then Groothuisbans them, claiming that they were "uncivil".